Discussion: Racism - Part 3

[DarthSkywalker]

The post you quoted literally has "unarmed" in it, why you always on my nuts fam? I know you're an argumentative snot, but trying to cast aspersions on my honesty seems like a relatively cheap shot, but okay I should've said "having all the same characteristics as the Trayvon murder" in order to avoid confusion, but I clearly didn't do that because I'm a sneaky liar trying to catch people out

Yes, because when your argument boils down to, "well I am sure it happened one time, somewhere", you seem to be really understanding the obvious point here.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Bar the overuse of capitals the poster hasn't made offensive remarks, I don't agree with the conspiratorial new world order nonsense but it would be remiss not to consider the possibility that the political friction in the USA doesn't make for a great opportunity to make money for some people.

The post which I won't bother quoting is full of nonsense. Regarding yours, most certainly there are big money interest fueling and driving each party. The key difference, in my mind at least, is the democrats at least push for progressive bills such as equal rights or to combat global warming. The right are all about making as much money on the backs of the poor and middle class with almost no regard to anything besides serving big corporate interest. It's that cut and dry for me.

 

[DeadPresident]

The post which I won't bother quoting is full of nonsense. Regarding yours, most certainly there are big money interest fueling and driving each party. The key difference, in my mind at least, is the democrats at least push for progressive bills such as equal rights or to combat global warming. The right are all about making as much money on the backs of the poor and middle class with almost no regard to anything besides serving big corporate interest. It's that cut and dry for me.

Sure, and if we're going off modern ethics and morality I fully agree just from an ideological standpoint the democrats are more ethical in terms of their propositions. Unfortunately, though, I think that results in people super-imposing that ethical ideology onto all the personal decisions, actions and results from individual Democrats - like Clinton for instance, and that feels like a step too far.

I'd say both are out to serve corporate interest since the American political system effectively legalizes corruption, I'd just say the Democratic Party leaves far less social ruin in their wake than the Republicans do - but not that their approach can't be massively improved upon. IMO if the Democrats were as progressive as they'd like us all to believe they'd start looking into serious legislative and economic reform, which they're not so I take their holier than thou attitude with a pinch of salt.

My perspective on the US party dichotomy is that the Republicans are the worst option, the Democrats a significant improvement, but the whole arena in which they engage is by its design never going to achieve for the average American what could be achieved given the country's considerable resources. That's perhaps why I react more dismissively to people nailing their hopes and dreams to the Democrat's flag like they're some savior - they aren't, they're just a ****e-side better than the Republicans who aren't even a party anymore, just a caricature of Corrupt Politicians, Inc.

 

[DeadPresident]

Yes, because when your argument boils down to, "well I am sure it happened one time, somewhere", you seem to be really understanding the obvious point here.

Which seems a relevant distinction considering everyone's remonstrations that white people always come out on top in these specific situations. Preferential treatment isn't the same as a systemic algorithm that ensures whites always maintain the upper hand by some cosmic force, which is what gets insinuated in these parts rather frequently.

But that's not what I pointed on regarding your chipping in, it's mostly about how I'm accused of intellectual dishonesty and you've avoided that criticism by deflecting, as I assume Matt would as well.

Don't bother responding, I remember now observing your argumentative and antagonistic approach with Ice in football why I originally put you on ignore, you're not worth anyone's time because you're just here to incite argument, not debate

 

[hellified]

I am for LIMITED GOVERNMENT. And if that makes me a racist, well then it's clear to me the people using that term, the left ARE THE RACISTS THEMSELVES...

As they

• STARTED THE KKK (Nathan Bedford Forest)
• WROTE JIM CROW LAWS
• STACKED THE COURTS WITH DRED SCOTT SUPPORTERS
• WERE AGAINST THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 (INCLUDING AL GORE SR. WHO INFAMOUSLY FILIBUSTERED FOR HOURS)

Yes the dems were and are racist cruds from the beginning who today take the black vote for granted..but the GOP isn't clean either. Republcans DID get black support and vote and on a number of occassions SOLD OUT the black vote for political expediency.

Rutherford Hayes becomes President at the cost of ending Reconstruction in the South was a significant blow to the blacks and showed how little interest the Republicans had in their cause (a point already made clear when the Republican administrations sold confiscated land back to white elite instead of making it available to the freed slaves as promised -- 40 acres and a mule?)

When the administrations of Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge showed no interest in assisting Blacks regaining the franchise or putting a halt to lynchings and violence in the South, Black support of the GOP largely ended during the administration of Herbert Hoover when the Great Depression devastated the Black community and Hoover seemed to ignore that community’s plight.

Blacks began to migrate to the Democratic party (again those who could vote) and became enthusiastic supporters of Franklin Roosevelt. After World War II, elements of the Democratic party (although not the Southern bloc) began to seek out Black voters and Black votes while the Republicans began to court White Northern and Western voters.

And lets not forget Lee Atwater's 1981 quote about the southern strategy: You start out in 1954 by saying, “Ni**er, ni**er, ni**er.” By 1968 you can’t say “ni**er”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Ni**er, ni**er.”

[YT]MAPeFRNtTP4[/YT]

And thats a strategy thats STILL in effect TODAY.

So BOTH parties are jacked up IMO

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Which seems a relevant distinction considering everyone's remonstrations that white people always come out on top in these specific situations. Preferential treatment isn't the same as a systemic algorithm that ensures whites always maintain the upper hand by some cosmic force, which is what gets insinuated in these parts rather frequently.

But that's not what I pointed on regarding your chipping in, it's mostly about how I'm accused of intellectual dishonesty and you've avoided that criticism by deflecting, as I assume Matt would as well.

Don't bother responding, I remember now observing your argumentative and antagonistic approach with Ice in football why I originally put you on ignore, you're not worth anyone's time because you're just here to incite argument, not debate

The thing is, you can't prove it has happened. You just assume it did. Why? And you do this while trying to avoid the obvious point. It isn't about a systemic algorithm, it is about human beings in places of power continuing to demonstrate that institutional racism is still very much real.

By the way, since when do Iceman and not get along? Talk about deflecting. You just ran away while making stuff up.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Sure, and if we're going off modern ethics and morality I fully agree just from an ideological standpoint the democrats are more ethical in terms of their propositions. Unfortunately, though, I think that results in people super-imposing that ethical ideology onto all the personal decisions, actions and results from individual Democrats - like Clinton for instance, and that feels like a step too far.

I'd say both are out to serve corporate interest since the American political system effectively legalizes corruption, I'd just say the Democratic Party leaves far less social ruin in their wake than the Republicans do - but not that their approach can't be massively improved upon. IMO if the Democrats were as progressive as they'd like us all to believe they'd start looking into serious legislative and economic reform, which they're not so I take their holier than thou attitude with a pinch of salt.

My perspective on the US party dichotomy is that the Republicans are the worst option, the Democrats a significant improvement, but the whole arena in which they engage is by its design never going to achieve for the average American what could be achieved given the country's considerable resources. That's perhaps why I react more dismissively to people nailing their hopes and dreams to the Democrat's flag like they're some savior - they aren't, they're just a ****e-side better than the Republicans who aren't even a party anymore, just a caricature of Corrupt Politicians, Inc.

I can't say I disagree with any of this. Which is why I will almost always vote Dem for the President but I do try to do my research down ballot. The Dem moniker does not get my vote just because.

With regards to your point about Dems putting forth some kind of bill to stop corporate interest from dumping money to their respective candidate their arms are pretty much tied after SCOTUS ruled in favor of Citizens United. Something would have to go back up to SCOTUS (which now will lean R) and pretty significant evidence would have be presented to have them rule against the previous ruling.

 

[Wylie Times]

Trump has a lot of minority supporters but like the white ones, they are just under cover. Trust me,I know tons of them.

Pretty much all of the polling says otherwise. Trump has more minority voters than people would expect, but he doesn't have what I would consider "A lot" of support among minorities.

 

[Docker2.0]

Pretty much all of the polling says otherwise. Trump has more minority voters than people would expect, but he doesn't have what I would consider "A lot" of support among minorities.

They also said that before the election as well and looked what happened. A poll can pretty much go anyway you want it to if you go to certain areas.

 

[Wylie Times]

They also said that before the election as well and looked what happened. A poll can pretty much go anyway you want it to if you go to certain areas.

What happened is that the polling was pretty much spot on in regards to minority voters.

The only "surprise" was how many white women ended up voting for Trump.

 

[Docker2.0]

What happened is that the polling was pretty much spot on in regards to minority voters.

The only "surprise" was how many white women ended up voting for Trump.

That's the thing: He has A LOT of DL supporters! I'm telling you, a lot of minorities talk that "I hate Trump" crap but behind close doors, they support him. I know tons of Latinos who support him because they say illegals make them look bad. They are not just open with it because here in some areas of New Jersey and New York, you may get an ass whooping saying "Make American Great Again"...............politics are just that deep and dangerous these days.

 

[ouroboros]

Feels a little too what-iffy - considering the number of gun deaths in the USA per year there's probably been an incident exactly like that that just didn't catch media hype where an excuse similar to Zimmerman's worked, again. This concept that whites are completely protected and hallowed citizens is borderline mythical.

Here's an example of a white teen killed by a cop. I certainly didn't hear about it from the mass media, and only found it through Google.

 

[ouroboros]

if enough people in florida thought and feel the same way they could make it so.


A judge said on Thursday that jurors in the George Zimmerman case can consider the lesser charge of manslaughter, but she delayed ruling on whether they may also consider third-degree murder after defense attorneys called the proposal "outrageous".

The judge, however, agreed with the prosecution that jurors could consider manslaughter as a lesser charge.

West said he wanted the six jurors to only consider the second-degree murder charge or not guilty.

"The state has charged him with second degree murder. They should be required to prove it," West said. "If they had wanted to charge him with manslaughter … they could do that."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/zimmerman-trial-manslaughter-charge

y'know google works for everybody

had they found him guilty of manslaughter it would have been legally controversial.




you didn't look up black codes and jim crow laws did you...Much of the change in the US didn't come from using laws on the books but having laws struck down or creating new laws. That requires the conscience of the people being pricked enough to want to effect change in the laws. Thats what the civil rights marches was primarily about..civil disobedience. Its why some white people in the 1800s were called abolitionists..to abolish slave laws.

your earlier statement There were some official laws on the books, like laws against racial intermarriage, but by and large most of the strategies used to oppress black people were not laws, but customs. Is just not true.

And acts like lynchings while not legal, the lack of prosecution or guilty verdicts for the perps was completely within the legal system. And thats what black and other minorities had and have to deal with more than anything. Thats why you have some cops today walking around like their teflon because they know the system gives them the benefit of the doubt no matter what they do...until theres an ultra egregious act that sparks enough outrage for people to want to change the system or laws.



whats not true to life..how black men feel theyre perceived by white people?

How long have you been black to be able to make that judgment? What is this white 'splaining?? you gonna tell black men how they feel about something now?

(1) Nothing you've stated about the particulars of the case are germane to the point, trying Zimmerman for second-degree murder, which could not succeed unless the jury just ignored the law (hey, just like old-timey lynch law!), confused the issue and saved him from receiving any kind of sentence.

(2) I didn't bother to answer your references to vagrancy laws et al because I did not state that there were no laws specifically against blacks except for intermarriage laws, I said that there were "some," and yes, that can indeed include the ones you mentioned. I realize you're still groping for ways to prove that racism was legal and therefore system, but I maintain that most of the abuses were extra-legal rather than legal. Yes, laws can be changed, but it's not purely out of "conscience," since conscience can be made to serve evil just as easily as logical considerations. The men who chose to protect their community by failing to prosecute lynchings could have believed that they were exercising good conscience, to protect the white community. You have to use logic to sway people out of their regressive customary habits, not just beating them over the head with your opinions.

(3) If a show like "black-ish" wants to exaggerate real life for effect, that's fine, but it raises the question as to how, if at all, a given scenario hews to real life. I found it improbable that the scenario you cited from the show had a direct relationship to real experience, but I didn't state that it was impossible; I asked if anyone here had heard of this particular scenario happening in real life. I don't think that's beyond the pale.

 

[Hypestyle]

Please explain. Many things said in here I don't get all point of it. Why in USA you speak and think of race every day? In other countries we worry about work hard and take care of family. We worry of government yet, but not directly of other citizens all the time. We not thinking of race, gender, religion all day everyday. But Americans do??? The focus on these things when I in US always make me shake head. If someone asian white or black it doesn't matter. Just another human being who happens to look different from you. Stop everyday thinking of race, that is not of productive way to live life.

Well Primus, it kind of starts with the European colonial settlers' antagonism toward the Indians, and then the importation of Africans as slaves. From there, "race" in America is the original sin that never goes away, not really.

"Colorblind" sentiments, in certain contexts, may be well-meaning, but they often fall short to address the core issues that involve the conflicts that occur in American society. A lot of people feel that "class only" should be the approach to social justice, but there are still damaging racial narratives that affect how Europeans/whites see ethnics of color.

 

[DeadPresident]

For the sake of inclusivity there are damaging narratives about how all ethnicities view one another, too, although the most prominent among them is the perception from whites due to numbers.

 

[hellified]

(1) Nothing you've stated about the particulars of the case are germane to the point, trying Zimmerman for second-degree murder, which could not succeed unless the jury just ignored the law (hey, just like old-timey lynch law!), confused the issue and saved him from receiving any kind of sentence.

The woman, known as Juror B37, told CNN's Anderson Cooper that when the jury began deliberations Friday, they took an initial vote. Three jurors -- including B37 -- were in favor of acquittal, two supported manslaughter and one backed second-degree murder. She said the jury started going through all the evidence, listening to tapes multiple times.

When they started looking at the law, the person who initially wanted second-degree murder changed her vote to manslaughter, the juror said. Then they asked for clarification from the judge and went over it again and again. B37 said some jurors wanted to find Zimmerman guilty of something, but there was just no place to go based on the law.

CBS News legal analyst Jack Ford said Florida's rules on finding someone guilty of manslaughter are "confusing."

the jury wasn't confused about the 2nd degree murder charge so much as constrained.

(2) I didn't bother to answer your references to vagrancy laws et al because I did not state that there were no laws specifically against blacks except for intermarriage laws, I said that there were "some," and yes, that can indeed include the ones you mentioned. I realize you're still groping for ways to prove that racism was legal and therefore system, but I maintain that most of the abuses were extra-legal rather than legal. Yes, laws can be changed, but it's not purely out of "conscience," since conscience can be made to serve evil just as easily as logical considerations. The men who chose to protect their community by failing to prosecute lynchings could have believed that they were exercising good conscience, to protect the white community. You have to use logic to sway people out of their regressive customary habits, not just beating them over the head with your opinions.

again youre not considering the scope and scale of vagrancy and jim crow laws. Up until 50 years ago most blacks lived in the south which means the laws and execution of those laws governed large swaths of their lives...thats not "some". If youre not going to do the homework then don't bother with the making the argument because you have no idea what youre talking about.

(3) If a show like "black-ish" wants to exaggerate real life for effect, that's fine, but it raises the question as to how, if at all, a given scenario hews to real life. I found it improbable that the scenario you cited from the show had a direct relationship to real experience, but I didn't state that it was impossible; I asked if anyone here had heard of this particular scenario happening in real life. I don't think that's beyond the pale.

no its just beside the point.

 

[ouroboros]

The woman, known as Juror B37, told CNN's Anderson Cooper that when the jury began deliberations Friday, they took an initial vote. Three jurors -- including B37 -- were in favor of acquittal, two supported manslaughter and one backed second-degree murder. She said the jury started going through all the evidence, listening to tapes multiple times.

When they started looking at the law, the person who initially wanted second-degree murder changed her vote to manslaughter, the juror said. Then they asked for clarification from the judge and went over it again and again. B37 said some jurors wanted to find Zimmerman guilty of something, but there was just no place to go based on the law.

CBS News legal analyst Jack Ford said Florida's rules on finding someone guilty of manslaughter are "confusing."

the jury wasn't confused about the 2nd degree murder charge so much as constrained.


again youre not considering the scope and scale of vagrancy and jim crow laws. Up until 50 years ago most blacks lived in the south which means the laws and execution of those laws governed large swaths of their lives...thats not "some". If youre not going to do the homework then don't bother with the making the argument because you have no idea what youre talking about.


no its just beside the point.

(1) Given that your whole purpose is to show how effed-up Florida's laws are for not having imperfect self-defense, I don't have any reason to accept your account as veracious. You refuse to criticize the district attorney's office for overcharging because that would throw a bad light on the prosecution's responsiveness to activists who wanted Zimmerman to be charged with murder. You'd rather convince yourself that there's nothing wrong with giving overzealous activists what they want, and the only thing that needs correcting is a particular state's set of laws.

(2) Ironically, your insistence that Florida ought to revise its laws is exactly what I've said had to happen to correct the abuses of Jim Crow. Of course I maintain that there were "some" laws that specifically targeted blacks, because the "scope and scale" of ALL abuses under Jim Crow stemmed not primarily from the law but from custom. As you yourself admitted, lynching was not permissible under even the corrupt laws of the South, but custom, evolving from a particular group's desire to suppress another group, made it possible for lynchings to go on.

(3) It's beside the original point you wanted to make, such as it was.

 

[hellified]

(1) Given that your whole purpose is to show how effed-up Florida's laws are for not having imperfect self-defense, I don't have any reason to accept your account as veracious. You refuse to criticize the district attorney's office for overcharging because that would throw a bad light on the prosecution's responsiveness to activists who wanted Zimmerman to be charged with murder. You'd rather convince yourself that there's nothing wrong with giving overzealous activists what they want, and the only thing that needs correcting is a particular state's set of laws.

thats not my account its the juror's. And the parents of the dead kid just wanted their day in court to understand how their kid who went out for junk food never came back home and the man who killed him tells a story about trayvon "lying in wait" in the bushes and attacking him for some unknown reason. Again a black man killing a white teen under the same conditions would have automatically been charged and it wouldn't have taken a national outrage for it to happen.

(2) Ironically, your insistence that Florida ought to revise its laws is exactly what I've said had to happen to correct the abuses of Jim Crow. Of course I maintain that there were "some" laws that specifically targeted blacks, because the "scope and scale" of ALL abuses under Jim Crow stemmed not primarily from the law but from custom. As you yourself admitted, lynching was not permissible under even the corrupt laws of the South, but custom, evolving from a particular group's desire to suppress another group, made it possible for lynchings to go on.

jim crow laws grew out of black codes and vagrancy laws which grew out of the abolishment of slave laws. And slave laws codified the treatment of african americans from birth to death. The culture comes from the code of law.

 

[chaseter]

Nm...not worth it


Let's talk about ESPN pulling an anchor named Robert Lee, an Asian man, from a Virginia game because they feared retaliation....

 

[RockSP]

No matter what his ethnicity happens to be that is stupid.

 

[TheCardPlayer]

The terrible argument of "Democrats are the true racists and started the KKK", is about the most disingenuous one I've seen in politics/racial discussion in recent years. It's a Trump tier distortion of current facts. I mean it's not Democrats that were marching with the KKK and Neo-Nazis in Charlottesville. It's people in MAGA hats.

From about WW2 to the Civil Rights Act, there was a lot of opposition from BOTH sides to affording civil rights to blacks. And the Southern Democrats, the Dixiecrats were the leading force of racism in the Democrats. And after 1964 they all left for the Republican party. And for the 1968 election they came up with the infamous "Southern Strategy", which was basically using racism to woo white voters in the South.

Dixiecrats who defected to the Republican party, shaped the future of the party and the GOP is what it is now, because of them. So yes, it's true that a lot of Democrats used to be racist and were in the KKK. But you can't ignore facts and history. These guys all left for the Republican party and started using race, to bait voters.

 

[DJ Kornphlake]

It also ignores that the Republican party at the time of Lincoln was the liberal party, and the Democrats were the conservatives.

 

[SuperT]

Please explain. Many things said in here I don't get all point of it. Why in USA you speak and think of race every day? In other countries we worry about work hard and take care of family. We worry of government yet, but not directly of other citizens all the time. We not thinking of race, gender, religion all day everyday. But Americans do??? The focus on these things when I in US always make me shake head. If someone asian white or black it doesn't matter. Just another human being who happens to look different from you. Stop everyday thinking of race, that is not of productive way to live life.

Not sure where you're from but I'm going to guess that your country probably doesn't have the same history of slavery, segregation and anti-blackness/minorities that the U.S has had and still continues to have?

 

[ouroboros]

thats not my account its the juror's. And the parents of the dead kid just wanted their day in court to understand how their kid who went out for junk food never came back home and the man who killed him tells a story about trayvon "lying in wait" in the bushes and attacking him for some unknown reason. Again a black man killing a white teen under the same conditions would have automatically been charged and it wouldn't have taken a national outrage for it to happen.


jim crow laws grew out of black codes and vagrancy laws which grew out of the abolishment of slave laws. And slave laws codified the treatment of african americans from birth to death. The culture comes from the code of law.

One jury's members might have wanted to abide by the letter of the law; another's might have felt empowered to bend it a little and convict on manslaughter. My main point was that the D.A. did the case no favors by charging Zimmerman with a crime that almost no one could reasonably convict him on.

For what it's worth to you-- and I foresee, probably not much-- we're pretty sure Martin was aware that he was being followed, because his girlfriend said that he was. What he did after that is anyone's guess.

Maintain that the law comes about from the cultural advantage of the people in charge, but not really interested in repeating the argument.

 

[ouroboros]

Nm...not worth it


Let's talk about ESPN pulling an anchor named Robert Lee, an Asian man, from a Virginia game because they feared retaliation....

I assume that some middle-management type got scared that if he didn't anticipate the worst, he'd take the blame if something happened.

I keep thinking that there have been a few real situations that were just about as stupid-- you know, one person's name being conflated with someone else-- but nothing specific comes to mind.